Recent posts by issendorf on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Confederate Flag and Civil Liberties

and resurrected in the 1960’s as a symbol of opposing de-segregation.

This is actually still debated. It was originally raised to mark the 100th anniversary of the Civil War, but whether it was also raised to protest the civil rights act is not completely clear whether that was part of the original intent.

It’s purely a symbol of hate.

Perhaps to you it is a purely a symbol of hate, but no symbol is purely anything. Symbols are, by their very nature, different to different people. The Confederate flag is to many people, that symbol of slavery and represents the very worst of America. To others, it represents a treasonous insurrection against the American government. However, there are many people in the South who view it as a signal of Southern pride or as a symbol of states’ rights. I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m skeptical that you actually know whether racism exists in every Southern person’s heart who views the Confederate flag in a positive light.

Now, you could make the argument that it’s impossible to separate the racist elements from the Confederate flag, and maybe that’s correct and probably a conversation worth having. But, it’s far too simplistic to go out and say that this symbol is purely hate. Just keep in mind the last time the issue was voted on, more than a quarter of blacks (if anyone should have sway in removing the flag, it’s them) wanted the flag to stay. It’s really easy for outsiders to go out and say it has no place and one singular meaning, but it does the debate surrounding the flag a great disjustice by ignoring the fact that it really isn’t clear cut.

That, and the more base association of the Stars & Bars w/ the ignorant “redneck” factions of the South. Ya know, the ones that don’t own lawnmowers because their lawns are covered with dead vehicles …. usually pickups w/ huge wheels & a gun rack. They heat their homes by burning non-winning lotto & scratch tickets. They have their “preacher” help them fill out their mail-in votes because they don’t know how to read.

So many stereotypes, so little time.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Freedom of Speech: Garland, TX style

I actually meant to post this earlier when I got distracted by other posts in the thread. I saw this on Wapo; it does a really good job going through the Constitutional precedents regarding hate speech.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Freedom of Speech: Garland, TX style

I’m sure various news agencies bring on people to talk about global warming (Fox for sure has) where they give them both equal time to present their side.

Literally only Fox (and that’s really generous of you to classify them as a news agency; even I don’t go quite that far) has over at least 10+ years and it’s probably been longer than even that. Alarmists literally no longer debate skeptics because they consistently lost the debates. And the results were so one-sided that it wasn’t good television.

Who aren’t climate scientists (or scientists at all, usually) and are almost invariably dissenting based on previously held beliefs.

Got it. Astrophysicsts at Harvard, Atmospheric Science profs at MIT or the former Director of CSIRO aren’t scientists (among others – I just picked these three at random). Good you cleared that up.

The tone and purpose of the article is so completely different that were you to use this source in a paper writing about how not all climate scientists agree, you’d be marked off for misrepresenting the position of said article.

The tone and the purpose doesn’t change the fact that it disagrees with the 97% consensus and is one measure that perhaps the consensus of 97% is overstated. That’s the point of it. If you want to read into the “tone,” fine – I only linked it because a) it had a nice, concise summary of the findings and b) had links to the study if you wanted to look at them. I guess I should have just linked right to the data, although I’m sure that somehow would have garnered some other form of absurd criticism.

“Over 99% of scientists agree that climate change is, at least in part, anthropogenic. That’s what we call a “consensus,” and we respect that.” – Stanwise, page 1.

The 97% number that I mentioned (and I can comfortably say stan wouldn’t have a problem with) asserts that 97% of scientists believe man is the main culprit for climate change. Mine disputes that and is just one instance that the 97% number is likely inflated. WHICH WAS MY POINT.

As to the bolded part, I’ve said oodles of time that I believe man has some impact. So you just keep setting up that straw man.

You could learn about the topic, but no one is preventing you from repeating the same old incorrect beliefs.

I’ve learned much and I’ve moved much more into the middle over the past 5-6 years. What I contend, and what is really debatable is 1) climate data is flawed 2) the consensus is overstated 3) man has an impact but how much of an impact is still unknown 4) our methods of measuring human activity suck 5) since climate is far from settled science, it deserves a robust debate and 6) since models have consistently over projected what the change of climate would be, it seems reasonable to think humans have less of an impact than is currently. I don’t believe any of these conclusions are radical, and they certainly aren’t uninformed.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask of the alarmists to provide some accurate data for a chance before expecting people to take their word as gospel.

No, it’s not. Those scientists, whoever gets the funding to do the research, still have to be reviewed by their peers. That’s what peer review is. The data is the data, the method is the method, and people are checking that they make no mistakes or skew their results.

Hey, we’re back on topic!

No funding = no research. If one side is silenced, it gets no funding. And politics decides which has a voice and subsequently gets to do the research and… well I think you can see the vicious cycle here. The claim that science is above politics is hogwash; politics has a significant impact in controlling what research does and does not get conducted.

Edited for clarity.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Freedom of Speech: Garland, TX style

The politics don’t change the data. Hell, most of the political world is pig ignorant of the work being done.

Politics dictate who gets funding which dictates who is going to be producing the data. Science can claim a moral high ground that they somehow have an immunity against politics, but that’s only true in a vacuum. Virtually all scientists play politics when they lobby governments for grant money, it’s just more egregious in the realm of environmental science.

At the end of the day, regular people don’t read the research firsthand; they hear about it second hand through the media. The media is the gatekeeper as to what data gets a voice and which does not and those decisions are in many instances made on a purely political basis.

You can claim that nobody gives a shit about data, as you seem to be doing, but that’s all it is; an empty claim.

I’m not saying people don’t give a shit about data, I’m saying that narrative the data tells is prioritized; whether the science is good science or junk science is an afterthought.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Freedom of Speech: Garland, TX style

Pete, you can claim all day that science is just another field of politics and empty rhetorivc where anyone has the right to hold anything as Truth evident, whether it is backed by data or backed by lies, and it doesn’t matter… but this is simply not the case.

The science itself is above politics. If your project doesn’t get funding from one source, you go elsewhere. The data itself doesn’t change, regardless of who does the funding. To do it any other way is to lose your right to speak as a scientist – your credibility will go the way of the dodo and you’ll eventually be labelled as yet another hack.

In theory yes, and most sciences still operate this way, at least in terms of climate (and environemental sciences more broadly) as it has become inherently politicized. It isn’t a matter of good data having value and bad data being devalued. It’s a matter of good/bad data that supports a particular narrative is valued and good/bad data is devalued that contradicts a narrative. The conclusion, not the quality, of the data is what’s used to determine whether it has value.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Freedom of Speech: Garland, TX style

It’s not shut down. People will let you say what you will and look at what you say. You just don’t like that they tell you what you’re saying is bogus – whether it is or isn’t. Speech contrary to established scientific concepts is not taken very seriously without good evidence, and often what one person thinks is good evidence to the contrary is actually a misunderstanding on the topic.
I want to call bullshit on this, btw. Skeptics aren’t treated like lepers – people who don’t understand what they’re talking about and get shot down think that they were shot down because others don’t agree with them. Then they play the victim card. They were never ignored or prevented from voicing their ideas. They were never told to get out.

Feel free to call bullshit on this, but I’m sorry to say that you’ll be incorrect. All scientists with contrary views allowed to debate the carbon alarmists? By-and-large, no. Is data that contradicts the main narrative published in the New York Times or mentioned on the NBC Nightly News? Nope. Are the motives of the scientists who publish contradictory views immediately and relentlessly questions (because obviously someone who dare contradict the main narrative has some nefarious motives)? You betcha. When NASA admits that their views on climate are incorrect, do mainstream publications put those on the front page (you can be damn sure they’ll hype the hell out of some sketchy “hottest year ever” claim)? Nope – they’ll do their damnedest to bury the hell out of it. You show me a news agency that’s give skeptics an iota of respect because I sure can’t find it. These aren’t nutjobs who are making these claims; these are people who teach at places like Harvard and MIT, but instead, we have to listen to the media repeatedly talk to Bill Nye for their climate analysis, accuracy be damned.

That article isn’t saying at all what you gave as the synopsis.

No, Kasic, it’s saying percisely what I said it’s saying. If we go back to what I wrote (since you can’t bother to read it apparently), I summarized, “Only 50% of scientists studied believe man is the primary cause of climate change. So you just keep hanging your hat on that beloved 97% number…” Now, that wasn’t terribly fair since it’s technically about 54% (not 50%) of those who believe, based on the PU study, that climate is the primary contributor to climate change. MY BAD. That number is significantly different than the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man is the primary contributor to climate change.

I’ll spell it out nice and simply for you. Stan says 97% of climate scientists think man is the primary contributor to climate change. I think that number is inflated and post one (there are other examples) instance that severely contradicts that claim by stating over 50% of climate scientists think man is the primary contributor. I’ve said repeatedly that man has some impact on climate; whether we’re the primary contributor or just a small factor, I don’t know (and neither do you, nor does any scientist for that matter).

It’s sad you were so wrong when you were probably so proud of yourself when you wrote this sentence. Maybe next time it’ll work out better for you!

Often they’re invited to debate and then whine when they’re shown to be completely ignorant or decline the invitation entirely (as Issendorf just did when I invited him to make a climate change thread so he could present his ideas to be discussed), and go off to tell their buddies how they were discriminated against for daring to disagree.

If you go to the Serious Discussion home page, there’s a search box. You can type in “global warming issendorf” and many threads on this topic that I’ve contributed to will pop up. You can browse to your heart’s content because this is an endless, circular topic where the same points get rehashed over and over and over again. If you like engaging in completely redundant conversations, more power to you, but I hope you’ll forgive me that rhetorically banging my head against a wall doesn’t get my rocks off.

If wanting to spend my time doing other things other than repeating a lengthy dialogue, well, I guess I’m a whiner, although not in any real sense of the word. Efficient would have been a better adjective.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Freedom of Speech: Garland, TX style

Evidence such as…? I’ve looked into the topic of Climate Change multiple times, in depth. The claim that evidence contradicts it has come up every time, and every time it’s been bogus “evidence” that’s really someone who doesn’t understand what they’re talking about using existing data and saying, “Nuh uh, this means this!”

The only reason I brought up climate change (and now regret doing so that it’s going to produce a quagmire) is how any contrary speech is shut down in realm of climate change. This has been rehashed a ton of times on these forums. I know that I’ve already done this and the thought of doing again is a bit wearying and, frankly, uninteresting; I’m not going to waste my time creating a redundant thread. If you want to talk about speech, great. If not, that’s great too, but you’ll be engaging in a one-way conversation going forward.

But! Because I’m such a swell guy, I’ll humor you ever so briefly. Weather models have consistently predicted temperatures to be higher than they turned out to be. There hasn’t been warming for over a decade (the earth should be literally on fire by now!) even though CO2 emissions continue to increase. There have been leaks of emails among climate scientists to hide issues in data that disputes their claims. The IPCC has stated publicly that their models overestimated temperatures and changes in climate. The number of severe storms hasn’t increased (it’s actually decreased funnily enough). Models overwhelmingly predicted Antarctic sea ice to decrease; instead it’s increased dramatically. Sea level rise is not accelerating. That seems like a good number of oopsies from the science community. I know you know your way around Google. You can find more data that disproves and more that affirms the science community. My point is that climate is anything but settled science. And unsettled science deserves to have a robust debate.

I’ll also leave this here since stan adores his consensuses so much. Only 50% of scientists studied believe man is the primary cause of climate change. So you just keep hanging your hat on that beloved 97% number; just realize that, much like your beloved climate data, it may not be all that accurate.

And the fact of the matter is, if skeptics weren’t treated like fucking lepers in the science community, there would be even more data that contradicts the status quo. But because of the mass effort to silence dissent, there’s a chilling of speech in the climate arena which is really unfortunate when you consider the amount of money greens want governments to spend adapting renewable energies.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Freedom of Speech: Garland, TX style

All we can do is act in accordance to the evidence we currently have. Evidence. Not facts. The most exciting thing a scientist can do is gather reliable, replicable data that contradicts currently-known evidence, because it means we have found something new and increased our understanding of how the universe works. And when new evidence comes, we change what we’re doing.

And vast amounts of recent evidence contradicts the dogma of climate scientists. How do you square that circle?

Honestly, the science community looks no better than Christian fundamentalists who refuse to acknowledge any data that contradicts their belief that the world is older than a few thousand years. When people’s predictions are consistently proven wrong for years (even after they massage the data to make it appear not quite as bad), it seems like a reasonable that maybe they’re overestimating man’s influence on climate. But does being so consistently incorrect sway the climate zealots? Nope!

The fact that you’re defending a community who seemingly refuses to not only acknowledge A) when they’re wrong and B) our knowledge of climate change is far from settle, is troubling and unsettling, especially when considering the role you play in the media.

The claim that “Well, lots of people think this way, so it must be true!” is just a mind-blowingly foolish way to go about thinking about scientific data when you consider that the overwhelming consensus has been shown to be completely incorrect for millennia. The science community treats those who disagree with essentially the same respect that the Vatican treated Galileo, not exactly the legacy you want to have.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Freedom of Speech: Garland, TX style

it would certainly be nothing compared to murdering doctors that perform abortions… a distinctly NON-left action that has resulted in at least 8 real deaths.

False equivalence. The abortion is simply an act, a medical procedure whereas all of the examples I cited are the left’s attempt to shut down speech they disagree with.

And even if it was an accurate equivalence (liberals HAVE killed those they’ve disagreed with, so not sure why you even brought this up), the bigger point I was making is that these attempts to silence are institutionalized among elite institutions such as the media and in universities across the universities. Those who are killing abortion doctors represent the fringiest of the fringe of the pro-life movement.

And I’m not sure how people protesting a speaker on campus isn’t protected under the same ideology as the person scheduled to speak. It is ultimately the campus’ decision on whom to assign allegiance… the preferences of the student body or the spirit of open discussion. And, of course, people are free to not attend the speech… and that’s precisely what most people do.

Which is the conclusion that universities should come to. Except they don’t by and large; they just tell Bill Mahr or Condi Rice “We don’t any of our precious snowflakes to feel sad so we’re cancelling your appearance. NO HARD FEELINGS I HOPE!”

Even the more conservative estimates place the rate of sexual assault at around 1 in 6. College campuses are likely to have the highest ratio of people who have suffered a sexual assault but have not yet received sufficient therapy to have reconciled it.

You ignored the (important!) point that those who want to question the accuracy of rape statistics are rape apologists and therefore are violent and shouldn’t be allowed on campus.

I’m making an appeal to emotion here, but I don’t think it’s a fallacy – do you really have no compassion at all for people in her situation?

Sure I have compassion. But trigger warnings have been abused by the radical feminists on college campuses to no longer have much meaning; they’re used primarily now to silence dissenting speech rather than to prevent women from reliving the hell they went through. When a speaker goes to Oberlin College and requires armed protection from the “safe zones,” you’ve lost your way. Don’t blame me for making trigger warnings a joke – blame the radical feminists making their way through college for perverting their intended purpose.

As a scientific journalist, I can assure you that we’re not trying to “silence” scientists – we instead have an obligation not to warp the truth. Over 99% of scientists agree that climate change is, at least in part, anthropogenic. That’s what we call a “consensus,” and we respect that.

And as a scientific journalist, you should be fully aware that consesus isn’t that important in science. You know what is? Facts. And the fact is, the climate scientologists that we’re supposed to accept have solved the questions of climate (because ANY dissent is immediately silenced) have consistently been incorrect with pretty much all of their data over the past 15+ years. I guess when you can’t rest on data, you have to rest on the flimsy excuse of “consensus.”

It would be foolish and irresponsible to our readers to pretend that the <1% is larger than it actually is, or that there’s any actual scientific debate going on as to whether humans are affecting the environment.

No, what’s foolish and irresponsible would be to blindly ignore evidence to the contrary that raises significant questions to the accuracy of the narrative that the majority is telling.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Freedom of Speech: Garland, TX style

What, if not “comfort,” would public nuisance laws be for?

You’re comparing apples and oranges, really. Place and time restrictions have been shown to be constitutional (you can’t protest at national parks after they close, for example). The comfort I assumed we were discussing was the comfort of the offended people. Their comfort is moot.

Issendorf, but is hate speech allowed from a company or a corporation? It may not be good public-relations policy but would those expressive freedoms be bestowed upon our country’s largest corporations? At some point wouldn’t the toxic atmosphere of fear upon a minority group (or even individual) throughout a long period of time eventually reflect itself in physical harm… diet, lack of health care, no dental, higher rates of fetal and infant deaths, and so on?

I see no reason why it wouldn’t be; corporate speech has been protected for decades and so too would hate speech be tolerable, as detestable as it would be. For instance, if a neo-Nazi wants to open a shop and has pamphlets at the table arguing that the Holocaust was fabricated, I have to believe that the courts would uphold that.

Drawing out even a little farther, does election investment protection for corporations amount to free speech and the candidate’s ability to incubate investors, (which will be handy for the US when approving international trade and labor deals), strike us as reasonable?

I’m not quite sure what you’re asking – would you mind expanding on it a bit for me?

Were the Westboro Baptists allowed to use bullhorns or amplification? I wonder if they chanted and yelled. I find their mere presence half circus side-show and half embarrassment at the human race… but I can see their right to demonstrate their feelings (one way or another) at a somber event as a reasonable interpretation of the law. However, should they act to deliberately disrupt and slow or stop the funeral ceremony, or hinder their business in any way, I would feel that police intervention would be appropriate.

I don’t believe bullhorns were permitted since that likely triggered the captive audience exception (essentially, forcing people to hear speech without an avenue to stop listening) and, as you say, could disrupt the funeral with isn’t protected just as shouting a speaker in a lecture hall isn’t protected; both sides have to have the ability for their speech to be heard. Now they were 1,000 feet away so I suppose it’s possible depending on the ordinance they could have used megaphones, but it’s possible they were only allowed to hold signs and shout.

So I don’t really think it’s fair to claim that a “politically correct left” is creating an environment of fear by muting those very voices that are agitating for social change. If it is “politically correct” perhaps it’s for good reasons. Beware of labels.

It’s the left that threatens to burn down pizzerias that view marriage as one-man, one-woman. It’s the left who have “trigger warnings” on university campuses and demand that people they disagree with not be allowed to speak on campus. It’s the left who claim any criticism of the President is racist and must not be tolerated. It’s the left that wants to silence any scientist that dare offer contradictory evidence in relation to anthropogenic climate change. It’s the left that claims anyone who questions rape statistics or, shockingly, dares to follow innocent until proven guilty in a rape accusation as a rape apologist. I could go on and on and on.

Sure there are lone elements on the right that want to silence speech, but the assault on free speech on the left is institutionalized in the media, in the universities and among their elected officials and their claims of being tolerant of all viewpoints are bullshit.

Now this goes in phases, and it wasn’t all that long ago that the right in this country were the ones attacking free speech while the left were more willing to protect it. It’s just right now seems that those who are fighting free expression tend to be on the right.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Freedom of Speech: Garland, TX style

What is the reasonable balance between a right to express oneself versus the comfort and dignity of others?

Comfort and dignity of others is irrelevant when deciding whether a form of speech is protected.

What is the scale of “personal expression” and does it apply to groups, organizations, companies, corporations, or even nations?

Scale of personal expression is essentially threatening harm. Otherwise, speech, including hate speech, is protected for individuals and groups alike.

Are some forms of personal expression perceived according to the medium in which they arrive? In other words, is publishing hate-speech different than speaking it? Are mimes included?

The only difference that may arise is if the hate speech is made face to face with the person that is being provoked because you can reasonably make the argument that the incendiary speech constitutes fighting words. Otherwise, in the eyes of the law of someone drawing Mohammad and shouting “Mohammad is a douche!”

Is the location relevant? Are some areas “expression-free zones?

There are, as has been seen with the lawsuits regarding protests directly outside of abortion agencies. Another instance would be Westboro was permitted to picket the funerals of soldiers, but they had to stay a set number of feat from the funeral (I think it was like 30 feet – could be wrong, been awhile since I’ve read that case).

EDIT: It was about 1,000 feet.

Can policy ever be interpreted as a personal expression? What defines “expression” and at what degree of interpretation does it become murky?

Essentially anything that the speaker claims to be speech can be constituted speech. The government has the burden to demonstrate that the speech is in question doesn’t qualify as protected speech.

What do you think? What’s the line?

I’m very hesitant to label any speech as unconstitutional. The fact that some pissed of Muslims will threaten to shoot up a convention center is hardly a good justification to silence controversial speech. The minute you go down the road of coddling the offended is when speech quickly becomes silenced because, as we mostly see on the politically correct left, almost any minority group will claim offense at any speech they don’t like. Sadly, more and more institutions are bowing to the claims of being offended rather than standing up for free speech.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

I don’t see much difference based on the source. The issue is that we’ve legalized bribery. Whether it comes from the Kremlin or anywhere else isn’t what concerns me.

It’s unconstitutional for U.S. officials to receive gifts from foreign governments; the source of the bribery is really quite important.

I’m a bit perplexed as to why ya keep over-extending Kasic’s & my position on her.
I assume it is because she is a Demo/liberal as opposed to GOP/conservative;
but, I hope I’ve already established that I’m not especially fond of either group.
I vote for the candidate I feel is “less crazy and will do the least damage”.
Such is what American politics has BLATANATLY come to.

I’m really not over-extending your positions. I merely stated I was amused by the logic you and Kasic were using to defend her and I’m doubly amused by the hypocrisy you’ll exhibit when you pull the lever for her as you essentially said you would with that cartoon (barring an entry into the field by Warren of course). You allege to hate money in politics and the political elite, yet you’ll vote for arguably the single worst culprit of the Washington elite.

But, your reasoning still holds: she is the lesser of evils?

There are a slew of Republicans that I think would do the job of President well. I’m fairly certain, based on her abysmal failure as SoS and , that she would not do the job of President very well. Unless the GOP nominates someone like Perry, Jindal or Carson, there’s no way I’ll ever perceive Clinton to be the lesser of two evils.

What I see as being relevant when it comes to being a serious/vialbe candidate for the Presidency is what they WILL BE doing once in the Oval Office. Do you agree on this point?

Completely agree, but why do you have any indication Hillary will do well in the Oval Office? She hasn’t done anything – her only notable achievement is marrying someone who became President. There’s no reason to think Jeb, Walker, Fiorina or Rubio (omitting Rand since he sadly also will never be elected President) couldn’t do the job as good or better than she could and when taking into all of her and her husband’s character flaws, there’s no reason to give her the edge over someone who is perceived as an equally qualified candidate.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

I don’t agree with that – I think it should be illegal to hide your donors. That’s just how the system is right now. The emails are a different issue that I’m not up to date with. Last I heard she released the servers? they were on or something like that.

Completely agree – private non-profits should absolutely have the right to keep their donor list private.

However, two points:

1) She said she would disclose the complete list and then backtracked on that public statement.
2) When you enter public office, you often have to (whether it be legally or for the good of the public) disclose information that run of the mill organizations/people don’t. She wanted to be a Senator, run for President and accepted the bid to be SoS. She knew what she was signing up for.\

Yeah, they had the final say.

If I may ask, where are you getting it? The referenced article uses the word “Congress” once, and it has nothing to do with them approving the transaction. This article mentions that Congress was concerned about the deal and was planning to draft legislation to kill it.

Pretty much every news agency is saying that in order for the deal to be closed, it had to be approved by that council of cabinet members. I can’t find anything that says Congress voted on this.

You really don’t have any grounds to say that. The article makes it pretty clear Hillary was working according to White House goals at the time.

That’s fair.

What, so if it’s not from one multimillionaire/billionaire in Russia it doesn’t count? That is oddly specific.

Sure it counts. It’s just when it’s from the Kremlin it’s a more problematic.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

YOU certainly are presuming far too much and basing it on far too little.

You given no positive reason to vote for her. As much as demographics favor the Democrats, running a candidate who has seemingly zero positives doesn’t seem like the best strategy.

So, should I infer that you are now supporting HRC above all of the rest?

You shouldn’t!

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

My understanding of history is that such politics is the theme by which most nations have been “governed”. The wealthy pay their stooges very well … and expect them to be very fruitful for them. The wealthy give a shit if their lackeys get some sticky fingers and help themselves to the “take”. The sin is in getting caught.

I can’t take you seriously when you’ll be blindly voting for the worst offender of money in politics in a year and a half.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Of course, groups/people they haven’t disclosed won’t be on there, but that goes without saying. Still, your statement is false.

Hardly. When you omit names from the donor list, you haven’t released the donor list – you’ve released the names that are politically palatable for the public to see. That’s the same false logic of the people who say Hillary released her emails. She didn’t release them – she released printouts of the emails she was ok with the public seeing and she’s using that same standard for the donors to the Clinton Foundation.

To think our top diplomat was engaged in foreign business relations involving money is so banal that my yawns have yawns. Quid-pro-quo is what negotiation IS. Mutual benefits.

As SoS, her duty is to put America’s interests ahead of her personal interests. Instead, she focused on enriching her and her husband.

The deal got approved by congress, according to the article.

I’m not see that in the article? What I’m seeing is top members from the cabinet, including Clinton, were the ones who had the final say. “Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had been a relatively smooth process.”

Congress didn’t seem to be aware of the deal until after it was approved.

5 seconds on google. It isn’t tens of millions to a single person, but as you pointed out, the Clintons are big fishes and senators not quite as much.

Should have been more specific – foreign persons. It’s hard to have much of a problem with PACs since most if not all of those corporations are massive multinationals who do business in the US. And I’d wager a guess that none of those Senators received money from a bank with ties to the Kremlin.

Have I ever said I liked her or wanted her as president?

Have I ever said that you did? I merely stated I loved the mindset of you and karma defending her.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

That’s like what 99.9999% of what every senator and house representative do every day, except for themselves to campaign for re-election.

Completely false equivalence. They’re not taking foreign donations. It’s a big difference. Also, those senators and reps disclose those campaign donations. The Clintons haven’t released their donor list.

To think that our top diplomat engaged in apparent quid-pro-quo corruption with foreign entities as no big deal is mind blowing. Her foundation solicited donations from foreign entities that often conflicted with national foreign interests. That’s a major problem, especially when you consider the consensus was allowing Russia to acquire Uranium One would be bad for American interests and the deal went through anyway.

All our politicians are corrupt and can be bought.

Find me one other politician who has raised tens of millions of dollars from foreign entities. Shouldn’t be too hard for you to do since they’re all corrupt and can be bought, right?

I love how you and karma are just sort of rationalizing Clinton’s bad behavior as “Aw shucks, everyone is corrupt. She can’t help it – it’s built into the system!” The Clintons are two of the most corrupt people in Washington. Comparing them to your average member of Congress is the equivalent of comparing Mike Trout to a Little Leaguer.

The deal wasn’t a secret in any way.

The deal isn’t the scandal. The money trail is the scandal and that was completely secret.

I’m not defending Hillary.

Your words beg to differ.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

I don’t like Hillary, but to be honest, that article seems to be pretty non scandalous.

Seriously? The Secretary of State uses her office to solicit contributions to her charitable (I use that word in the loosest manner possible) foundation. Not only that, Clinton, as she is wont to do in terms of ignoring the law, didn’t disclose those contributions made by the Uranium One to either the White House or the State Department. I’ll be generous and say it’s simply a massive conflict of interest rather than saying it stinks of bribery and corruption, but to not disclose that is indefensible and is entirely scandalous.

To put it in perspective of how crooked this is, Hillary wouldn’t all the U.S. to build a gas pipeline into Canada, but she’ll allow a Russian company to buy a Canadian company that will very likely ship American uranium to Iran.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Do you think Christie is going to run? I’ll have to look up some of the other “tolerable” ones you mentioned and get back on that.

I think he probably will. Then he’ll give like 6th in New Hampshire and that will be the end of him. He’ll play the role of Jon Huntsman admirably.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Enjoy Hillary lovers.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

You’re probably right. For some reason I wasn’t considering who else might enter the race on the GOP side. There’s still plenty of time for someone who isn’t absolutely crazy to come forward.

Rubio isn’t that bad! And Jeb and Fiorina I would think aren’t that terribly objectionable. If Kasich runs, he’d be fairly tolerable I imagine as well.

Cruz and Carson are the only truly batshit crazy ones IMO (well and Rand I suppose, but I love Rand so be gentle with him please).

EDIT: Forget Perry, Jindal and Huckabee. They’re terrible too.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

I said she is a good DEBATOR.

Except she isn’t. Go back and watch some of the 2007-2008 primary debates. She was utterly dreadful. She’s ok when the situation is scripted, and even then she isn’t that good (watch that presser after the email scandal; it’s almost painful to watch how she flails for any sort of good answer). She’s a colossal failure at improv, a key skill to be a good debater.

her opponents are likely going to be just that bad.

Unlikely. The Republican candidate will almost certainly have charisma, a quality Hillary Clinton lacks. The Republicans may not win, but it won’t be because they look worse publicly than Clinton.

There are more Democrats than Republicans

Even more important than that is how dominate the Democrats are in terms of the Electoral College. The Democrats have around 240 votes that they can almost guarantee 18 months before the election, meaning the Republicans have to pretty much sweep all of the swing states which is a pretty tall feat. That’s why no matter how poorly Hillary inevitably performs, she’ll still be the favorite (possibly a significant one) to win in 2016.

any candidate the GOP fields for its nominee is going to have to be so batshit insane that they alienate everyone who is not staunchly conservative.

A cute meme, but judging by the fact that they nominated incredibly moderate candidates the last two elections (and who are by all measures not batshit insane), that this won’t actually be the case.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by issendorf:

Oh let him have this jhco. It’s actually kind of adorable that he thinks Hillary is a good campaigner and is oblivious to the fact she has as much of a personality as a bowl of oatmeal.

Hey, at least it would be better than four years with Mitt “porridge” Romney.

Imagine how titillating Mittens v Hillary would have been.

Thanks Obama.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Watch that hyperbole Karma.

Oh let him have this jhco. It’s actually kind of adorable that he thinks Hillary is a good campaigner and is oblivious to the fact she has as much of a personality as a bowl of oatmeal.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Says a lot; pretty much what my answer to issendorf was … eh?

It’s pretty damning that the chief reason you’re voting for her is you don’t like the opposition, rather than stating a positive (are there any?) about her.